delete_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature ('will delete the file/directory and all its contents'), which is critical for a mutation tool. It also hints at the return value format. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or irreversible effects beyond the warning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical warning and structured parameter/return details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second warns of consequences, and the last two document I/O efficiently. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and a simple schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, warning, and parameter/return semantics. However, it lacks context on permissions, error handling, or system-specific constraints. The output schema exists, so return values are documented, but behavioral gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'path' refers to a 'File or directory path to delete', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Path' title. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient, but it doesn't detail path format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a file or directory', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' or 'get_file_url' by specifying deletion rather than reading or retrieving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive tools like 'clear_app_data' or 'delete_contact' beyond the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for system files), or direct alternatives among siblings. The warning about deletion is behavioral, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.